Hello, I too love the Total War games, and I absolutely love CK2 as well. CK2 focuses less on the military aspects and more on the political and personal aspects; throughout the game, your essentially creating elaborate and devious plots. I would personally recommend it, though I have to say it can have an intimidating learing curve. Hope I helped.

I used to be a big fan of Total War too, until I got EU3 (and a few months later, CK2 - I was a latecomer to EU!), now I can't imagine going back. The military aspect is obviously much reduced in CK compared to TW, but everything else is much more detailed and engaging! It's worth noting that while it may seem superficially similar to TW's campaign map, it's actually quite different. For one thing, it's all (pausable) real time - no turn-based shenanigans here! However it's not for everyone - have a look at some lets plays on YouTube or try the demo first if you're unsure :)

For the record, I just leapt right in and bought it before trying anything out, and I'm so glad I did!

Yes, CK2 is deffinetly worth buying. As the people before me said it is much more engaging politicly, economicly, and uuummmm, shall we say intruge wise. But the battle system is a little simpler than TW games. The major DLCs are worth it because there are features like retinues that you can't use if you don't have them. Although i hardly ever find myself using the ruler maker DLC thing.

The battles may be "simple" but beware of the opposing army composition and your army leader. You might end up wondering how your larger army ends up in the ditch. In fact, this often happens when you're fighting against the Mongols. It's not enough to have a bigger army, it has to be the right kind of troops lead by a high Martial leader.

The battles may be "simple" but beware of the opposing army composition and your army leader. You might end up wondering how your larger army ends up in the ditch. In fact, this often happens when you're fighting against the Mongols. It's not enough to have a bigger army, it has to be the right kind of troops lead by a high Martial leader.

This is true, but I really meant that there is less focus on the battles as you do not directly control them like you can in Total War. You just set things up as best you can within the limits of the game and let them get to it! I guess in a way this is more realistic.

I love both series as well. In fact, I find it's really satisfying to alternate playing them. CK2 is the more satisfying game overall, but it's very slowly paced and sometimes I just get frustrated when I feel that my strong army with 3 great commanders shouldn't have lost to a smaller army with weaker commanders. Then I go play a Total War game, where I can virtually ensure that any decent army can smash any enemy army, and I get sort of an action fix that way. It's also a bit of a relief in Total War to be able to conquer territories so relatively quickly compared to other strategy games. And then, when the Total War diplomatic system starts to annoy me with its limitations, I go back to CK2 and revel in the depth and relationships. Total War is a battle simulator while CK2 is a feudalism/dynasty simulator, and their stark differences are what make them complement each other so well!